Ask HN: Laws that should exist but don't

There are already far too many laws in the US. We should probably focus on making less things illegal rather then more.

When making things illegal, there is a lot of overhead involved. Take your examples for instance.

1) Make it illegal for TV commercials to display 10 lines of size 1 font at the bottom of a TV ad for 2 seconds. Nobody can see it. Nobody can read it even if they could see it. The law should be something like this:

"Any textual information displayed on a tv commercial should be of big enough size to be easily read in its entirety in the time displayed!"

Say this law is passed. Now who determines what size is big enough and how long is long enough. Suppose I'm a nearly blind, slow reader. Maybe 30 seconds at a size of 2 inches high is not a long enough time or large enough size for me? You could say that you mean an "average" person, but then it must be established what an "average" person is. Who does that? Then aren't you discriminating against people who don't fit the average? Should it be set to the lowest common denominator? In that case, you are boring to death people who can read exceptionally fast. I'm not going to stay tuned to text that stays around for 30 seconds when it only takes me 1 second to read it!

Now suppose we come up with an acceptable definition of "big enough" and "long enough", which will be a compromise definition. How do we enforce this definition? Punishment. What is an appropriate punishment for people that do not make the text big enough? For those that miss the size by a fraction of an inch, what is the punishment? Oh, and what about for people that the size is big enough for a 55" tv but not for a 25" tv? Yikes.

So, suppose we come up with a suitable punishment for these law breakers. Who will enforce this punishment? What if they do not pay the fine? Do we throw them in our already crowded prisons or build new prisons? Where does this money come from to enforce this law? Do we have monitors who scan the tv specifically for this rule, or add it to someone's position who already monitors things? Or make it reporting based, so only when it is reported it is punished.

There are lots more questions as well, this is just the tip of the iceburg.

"Now suppose we come up with an acceptable definition of "big enough" and "long enough", which will be a compromise definition. How do we enforce this definition? Punishment. "

You enforce it with fees against cable TV service providers, or whoever is responsible for publishing the advertisement.

"So, suppose we come up with a suitable punishment for these law breakers. Who will enforce this punishment? What if they do not pay the fine? Do we throw them in our already crowded prisons or build new prisons? "

The idea is not to punish people, but to bring more fairness to the consumer in terms of the information they are given and not to be mislead. If a cable company can get a way with displaying a novel worth of information for one second (in order to comply with disclosure requirements) and in the process duping a customer into signing up, I think there should be some rules against that.

As for enforcement, the FCC can easily enforce something like this.

"As for enforcement, the FCC can easily enforce something like this."

They're too busy looking for nipples and swear words.

As a curious european, I always wondered: who decided female nipples are shocking, but male nipples are acceptable? It's rather like saying, "you can show milk bottles, but only if they're empty".

To quote Robin Williams:

"Then the Puritans broke away from the Calvinists, our ancestors, people so uptight, the English kicked them out."

>Oh, and what about for people that the size is big enough for a 55" tv but not for a 25" tv?

Or a 13". And what about people who need glasses to read, but don't normally wear them to watch TV?

Ugh, more laws. NO Thank You!

Ever see that youtube video of a law professor discussing why you NEVER EVER talk to police? His point is basically, "we have so many laws that you never know which ones you're breaking, so you could be confessing without realizing it."

We have plenty of laws. Our legal codes are so complex and absurd that no one person can know a fraction of them. Even in their specific niches.

What we need (from the comments below) is a way to get rid of laws. Maybe some sort of a battle royale between laws that are already on the books, where the winner stays in the code.

Or maybe we should make a law that you cannot add a law to US codes without first deleting an equal portion of text. Want to make a new law? Fine, you've got to edit down the existing laws to make room.

Referendum to remove any federal law from the books by popular vote. 51% removes the law. It should be hard to make laws and easy to get rid of them, not the other way around.

Hell with 51%, try something like 40%.

Or even 20%. Think about it, if 1 out of every 5 people really dislikes a law, do you actually think it is likely to be a good law?

So what happens when 20% of the population want, for example, anti-discrimination laws repealed? You will always be able to find enough idiots to reach 20% - hell, polls that say "Are you alive?" always manage a few percent in the "don't know" box. Look at dirt poor people voting against inheritance taxes. Some shiny media personality will always be able to garner 20%.

I think we should have a law that everyone who votes on legislation should actually be required to read the final version of the legislation and take a reading comprehension test about it before voting on it.

One could argue that the phrase "this conversation may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" is both a warning (WE may record the conversation) and granting permission (YOU may record the conversation).

Whenever I hear that phrase, I always think "Thank you, don't mind if I do!" :)

I always choose to interpret "This conversation may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" as meaning that I may record this conversation for quality assurance purposes. Of course, this strategy would survive exactly one lawsuit before everyone changes the wording.

Congress shall make no law abridging the laws of physics.

How about a law that prevents unrelated laws and pork hidden within another law.

1) There should be a law banning the passing of any new laws. We have quite enough laws as it is, and our efforts should be spent towards hacking off some of the parts of this behemoth we have created, not adding to it.

Less laws is great, but how do you prevent companies from taking advantage of consumers without laws?

By not giving them the false sense of security that "consumer protection" laws provide.

There is no substitute for individual judgement, and there never will be. The reason for this is that what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another.

This this this this.

Caveat emptor.

Now, there are some cases (health standards, for example) where the laws prevent a lot of bad things that we wouldn't otherwise be aware of until something damaging happened.

But, really? Limiting the size of fine print text on a TV advert? If you can't figure out that the latest wunderpill from Merck has side effects that include death, perhaps you should start taking responsibility for yourself. (BTW, this wasn't aimed at you, maxharris... just the general "you" that I should when I rant)

Heading in the wrong direction: we need fewer laws, not more.

How about a law that make it illegal to make unnecessary niche laws that only serve parasitic lawyers.

Here's a relevant Phillip Howard TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/771

I find his proposed changes somewhat naive.

Of course laws can be simplified, however removing the idea of due process is a horrible idea.

For every new law, get rid two old laws.

Final result is either complete anarchy/lawlessness or one single very long law.

Depending on the exact implementation rules you might get stuck on zero or 1 and not be able to make any more laws (except the one that states "+1 -2").

Before you'd reach that problem, you have tens of thousands of laws to remove, so you can scrap the +1-2 rule in due time.

not a new law, but I don't think you should be allowed to kick field goals in overtime in NFL football. Such an easy way out the majority of the time, getting within the 30 is basically death.